Social Choice and Welfare

, Volume 43, Issue 1, pp 1–10 | Cite as

Dis&approval voting: a characterization

  • José Carlos R. Alcantud
  • Annick LaruelleEmail author
Original Paper


The voting rule considered in this paper belongs to a large class of voting systems, called “range voting” or “utilitarian voting”, where each voter rates each candidate with the help of a given evaluation scale and the winner is the candidate with the highest total score. In approval voting the evaluation scale only consists of two levels: 1 (approval) and 0 (non approval). However non approval may mean disapproval or just indifference or even absence of sufficient knowledge for evaluating the candidate. In this paper we propose a characterization of a rule (that we refer to as dis&approval voting) that allows for a third level in the evaluation scale. The three levels have the following interpretation: 1 means approval, 0 means indifference, abstention or ‘do not know’, and \(-1\) means disapproval.


Vote Rule Approval Vote Social Choice Rule Village Election Negative Vote 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Aleskerov F, Yakuba V, Yuzbashev D (2007) A threshold aggregation of three-graded rankings. Mathematical Social Sciences 53:106–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alós-Ferrer C (2006) A simple characterization of approval voting. Social Choice and Welfare 27:621–625CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arcelus F, Mauser G, Spindler ZA (1978) The right to vote no: revising the voting system and resuscitating the F-Y voter. Public Choice 33:67–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Balinski M, Laraki R (2007) A theory of measuring, electing, and ranking. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the USA 104:8720–8725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baujard, A., and Igersheim, H 2011, Framed-field Experiment on Approval Voting and Evaluation Voting. Some Teachings to Reform the French Presidential Electoral System. In: Bernard Dolez, Bernard Grofman and Annie Laurent (eds), In Situ and Laboratory Experiments on Electoral Law Reform French Presidential Elections. Studies in Public Choice Serie 1, vol. 25, 69–89.Google Scholar
  6. Baujard A, Gavrel F, Igersheim H, Laslier J-F, Lebon I (2012) Compte-rendu de l’expérimentation des votes par approbation et par note lors des élections présidentielles françaises le 22 avril 2012 à Saint-Etienne. Strasbourg et Louvigny, GATE Saint-Etienne WP 1220Google Scholar
  7. Brams SJ, Fishburn PC (1978) Approval voting. American Political Science Review 72(3):831–847CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brams SJ, Fishburn PC (2005) Going from theory to practice: the mixed success of approval voting. Social Choice and Welfare 25:457–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Felsenthal DS (1989) On combining approval with disapproval voting. Behavioral Science 34:53–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fishburn PC (1978a) Symmetric and consistent aggregation with dichotomous voting. In: Laffont J-J (ed) Aggregation and revelation of preferences. North Holland, Amsterdam, pp 201–218Google Scholar
  11. Fishburn PC (1978b) Axioms for approval voting: direct proof. Journal of Economic Theory 19:180–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gaertner W, Xu Y (2012) A general scoring rule. Mathematical Social Sciences 63:193–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. García-Lapresta JL, Marley AAJ, Martínez-Panero M (2010) Characterizing best-worst voting systems in the scoring context. Social Choice and Welfare 34:487–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hahn J (1988) An experiment in competition: The 1987 elections to the local soviets. Slavic Review 47:434–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hillinger C (2004) Voting and the cardinal aggregation of judgments, Discussion Paper 2004–09. University of MunichGoogle Scholar
  16. Hillinger C (2005) The case for utilitarian voting. Homo Oeconomicus 22:295–321Google Scholar
  17. Ju B-G (2005) An efficiency characterization of plurality social choice on simple preference domains. Economic Theory 26:115128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ju B-G (2010) Collective choices for simple preferences. In: Laslier J-F, Sanver MR (eds) Handbook on Approval Voting. Studies in Choice and Welfare, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, pp 41–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kang MS (2010) Voting as veto. Michigan Law Review 108:1221–1282Google Scholar
  20. Lepelley, D., & Smaoui, H. 2012, Le systè me de vote par note à trois niveaux: étude axiomatique d’un nouveau mode de scrutin. Mimeo: paper presented at the conference: XXIX Journées de microéconomie appliquée, Brest, June 2012.Google Scholar
  21. Yılmaz MR (1999) Can we improve upon approval voting? European Journal of Political Economy 15:89–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Young P (1974) An axiomatization of Borda’s rule. Journal of Economic Theory 9:43–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Xu Y (2010) Axiomatizations of approval voting. In: Laslier J-F, Sanver MR (eds) Handbook on Approval Voting. Studies in Choice and Welfare, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, pp 91–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Zhong Y, Chen J (2002) To vote or not to vote: an analysis of peasants’ participation in Chinese village elections. Comparative Political Studies 35:686–712CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universidad de Salamanca, Campus Miguel de UnamunoSalamancaSpain
  2. 2.Bridge, Fundamentos del Análisis Económico IUniversity of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU)BilbaoSpain
  3. 3.IKERBASQUE, Basque Foundation for ScienceBilbaoSpain

Personalised recommendations